PORT PERRY — It is, indeed, a tangled web, spun from a mixture of small town fact and rumour, its storyline replete with the prerequisite twists and turns, and its complicated plot supported by a cast of characters that need no Hollywood scriptwriter to bring them to life.

There is Katie Barker, age 21, who bartends at the local Duke of Durham, a pub owned by her parents, Wayne and Monica Barker. She had three pit bulls, one she owned, and the other two she was about to adopt.

Neighbour’s dogs

Those two dogs belonged to her neighbour, Craig Godman, age 31, who lived beside her and her boyfriend, separated by an adjoining wall in an old farmhouse-cum-duplex situated outside of town on Harper Rd.

All three dogs are now dead and buried in a manure pile

Indeed, the plot thickens.

William Cohoon is the landlord who owns the old farmhouse. He is a retired doctor, a surgeon by trade, as well as one of the coroners for the region.

He is also a farmer who raises beef cattle and chickens on a spread that backs on to that old farmhouse.

Longhaired, and with thick sideburns, the 67-year-old physician, respected for his years of medical practice as well as his success in recruiting new doctors to the area, was described by one local as looking like “someone who went to Woodstock back in ’69 and never left.”

Not far from truth

It is a description of Cohoon that is not far from the truth — he declined to have his picture taken.

Dr. Cohoon is also the landlord who shot those three dogs one day when Katie Barker was away from home, and then buried them in the manure pile behind one of his barns — all which goes a long way to explaining the posters that once adorned a number of telephone poles here.

“Doctor Cohoon is a pet killer,” they read.

This is not to say, however, that Dr. Cohoon makes any bones about what he did.

Because he doesn’t.

“The dogs were out running my cattle, and on more than one occasion,” he explains.

“I advised the kid that if she didn’t keep her dogs locked up or chained that they would have to answer to what they were doing.

“They were shot with good reason.”

Sgt. Al Brouwer was the duty officer in charge of Durham Regional Police’s Port Perry detachment on the day he was asked about the shooting of three dogs, and whether all was on the up and up, and that’s exclusive of the newish legislation that demands all pit bulls in Ontario be leashed and muzzled when outside their domicile.

“Dr. Cohoon is a farmer here, and he has every right to protect his livestock from those dogs or any dog. As far as we’re concerned, he did no wrong,” says Brouwer, indicating that the gun the doctor used was also properly registered.

He suggests, however, that there is perhaps more to that Harper Rd. farmhouse than meets the eye.

“Check your own newspaper,” he says.

There wasn’t much in the Sun about the drug bust that went down two weeks before three pit bulls met their end, but the local Scugog Standard had the matter covered like a blanket.

It told of how Durham Regional’s drug enforcement unit, supported by heavily armed members of the tactical support unit, as well as uniformed officers, took down the side of the old farmhouse where one Craig Godman lived — he being the person who resided on the other side of the wall of the duplex where Katie Barker lived with her boyfriend — and allege they found a marijuana grow-op with an estimated street value of $50,000.

That, and a loaded shotgun.

Pit bulls and grow-ops have all the optics of one plus ne equalling two. But, in this case, the three pit bulls in the farmhouse’s breezeway appear to have presented no problem to the police, which explains how Katie Barker came home to suddenly become the additional caregiver of her neighbour Craig Godman’s two dogs — he was in custody on drug and weapons charges, and three of his friends who were with him at the time of the bust were also facing an assortment of drug charges.

“I thought something might have been going on next door,” she says.

“But it was none of my business.”

The old farmhouse is vacant now. Katie Barker says Dr. Cohoon turned off the heat and water, forcing her and her boyfriend to move out.

Dr. Cohoon says not only was the rent in arrears, but that the place had been “trashed.”

Not rentable

She said; he said, yes. But the farmhouse, judging by what could be seen through a window, did not appear imminently rentable on the day it was visited — and that’s includes either side of the duplex’s separating wall.

“You want a story? Then look at landlord-tenant issues,” Cohoon says. “There’s no story in shooting three dogs.”

William Cohoon says, quite matter of factly, that he has no idea whether the three pit bulls were vicious or not.

I do not agree with the farmer as the dogs were non agressive and he could have called animal control or something. Not shot all three of them dead. Poor dogs. Sick man.

Loki

April 3rd, 2006, 02:24 PM

It looks like the sun re-edited the story.
I read it last night and it had the following under "Cleanly shot":
"
------------------------------------------------------------------
He put them down -- "cleanly shot and euthanized," he says -- not because they were vicious, but because they were chasing and endangering his livestock, a herd of 70 beef cattle with a value of about $1,100 per head.

"Like I said, I had warned the kid about those dogs," he says. "When she came home, I told her what I had done.

Once again we read of a farmer legally shooting dogs. Once again we hear that the owners were warned that it would happen if behaviours didn't change. Once again it's very clear where the blame lies.

twodogsandacat

April 3rd, 2006, 04:46 PM

Pit bulls and grow-ops have all the optics of one plus ne equalling two. But, in this case, the three pit bulls in the farmhouse’s breezeway appear to have presented no problem to the police, which explains how Katie Barker came home to suddenly become the additional caregiver of her neighbour Craig Godman’s two dogs — he was in custody on drug and weapons charges, and three of his friends who were with him at the time of the bust were also facing an assortment of drug charges.

Interestingly though that while it is not legal for the owner of a pit bull to adopt more pit bulls that the police didn't enforce this. I guess it is exactly as one Liberal MPP said "nobody will enforce this" which is exactly what was wrong with the previous DOLA which if enforced properly would have been far better than a ban on pit bulls. .

seeker

April 3rd, 2006, 07:40 PM

Whether legal or not whether the police do or do not do anything about it . If this happened to me, life for the Landlord would change probably not for the better .
My lawyer would love this !

twodogsandacat

April 3rd, 2006, 09:37 PM

I hope you understand that my point was that once again an owner of a dog(s) allowed the dog(s) to run cattle, the farmer did what he had warned them he would do and the dog(s) is\are dead.

I can understand an accident and I can understand a dog getting out but I don’t understand continual disregard for the safety of the dogs, the public and the cattle. The farmer may of pulled the trigger but the owner handed him the gun and the reason to use it.

At least it had nothing to do with being pit bulls but rather cattle chasers.

seeker

April 4th, 2006, 09:06 AM

I get the impression that he had an attitude like "They are only pitbulls so nobody will care". And from what I understand is happening over there that is what he thinks .
The public sees it as " Weed grower's Pitbulls shot by farmer ". So they probably will let this one pass .
Yes it is the fault of the owner as it almost always is , they ignored requests by the farmer to keep the dogs away from the cattle. But I don't think he needed to shoot them and then bury them in a manure pile so they can "compost" as he puts it. That is just wrong .

Watchdog

April 4th, 2006, 09:21 AM

Thanks to the government misleading the public and putting fear into them with their lies about pitbulls people like this ignorant farmer will continue to kill these dogs and think they are doing something good by doing it.

Me and Kayla

April 4th, 2006, 11:44 AM

At least it had nothing to do with being pit bulls but rather cattle chasers.

Nothing has changed! 40 years ago, while living in the 'country', I saw a farmer shoot two of the most beautiful Great Danes you can ever imagine. These were prize winning dogs. However, these were two dogs that were continually getting out of their pen and were chasing the farmer's sheep. In fact, they chased them until some of them were dropping dead. The owner was warned several times, by several neighbours that the dogs were creating havoc. He did nothing to change the enclosure, so that the dogs could not keep escaping. The farmer shot them. According to the police, he had every right to protect his property then, just as the farmer has the right to protect his property now.

So how come, I don't have the right to protect my property? If someone attacks me on the street or enters my house illegally and my dog defends me and/or my property, I face potential fines and the death of my dog.

Oh wait! I forgot! My property only consists of a house and people. Not nearly as valuable as some sheep or a cow.

Me and Kayla

Mom_Of_Two_Dogs

April 4th, 2006, 12:55 PM

I hate the anti-pit bull attitude (or the compost comment), but the fact is, people need to keep their pets confined.

I often go out for walks in the countryside with my dogs (on a leash, the only way to walk a dog) around Jerseyville and Miles Road, and too often I'm seeing people let their's run loose. They bother my dogs, wildlife, hikers, cyclists, probably livestock, too. The people who do that care obviously don't care at all for their pets, they just think of them as objects. Sad, really. It's not just farmers who can kill loose dogs, but wildlife too -- and if a coyote snatches up some JRT, guess who takes the blame?

phoenix

April 4th, 2006, 02:40 PM

of course i'm upset that dogs have to pay the price again for stupid owners...

I grew up on a farm... once two hounds chased down my horses and I had to go out and stop them... I was ony 15 and pretty scared but managed to grab one. If my dad had been home he would probably have shot *at* them to scare them off... as it was, the hunters who were running the dogs across the concessions stopped to pick up the dog, and I told them that they were trespassing on posted "no hunting private property"... they told me the dogs couldn't read signs. I questioned their own literacy skills, which they didn't appreciate. When I said that the dogs could be shot by a farmer, they answered that they'd shoot the farmer. This, to a fifteen year old girl. Bullies. (no pun intended associated with the dogs...)

Anyway, another time, I was biking home and a dog attacked me on the road in front of a house. It bit me pretty good and I had to hit it with my bike to get it off.

I've never had a farm dog act this way at all, and most are not tied up or fenced off. It has always been hunting dogs and the dogs running free on the 3/4 of an acre that some city folk bought to get away from the city rules...who of course let their dogs roam free.

I think the farmer was cruel but well within his rights and maybe at his wits end.

Luvmypit

April 4th, 2006, 03:09 PM

I dont think that it was illegal what he did. I still think he is sick. I don't care. He said himself they were unagressive. So the only option was to shoot them? Sorry don't buy it. Could have called animal control, shot warning shots ect... I am sure he didnt once call animal control? Shouldnt we leave the enforcement to the proper authorities?

What if it was the first time and someone shot your dog after you accidently let it out? All the farmer has to say is it was on my property and it does it all the time.

He definantly had an anti pit bull attitude. He said himself “But they’re pit bulls, aren’t they? They’re subject to change immediately.

“Sweet one minute, not the next.”

Sounds like prejudice to me. If anything hes offering another excuse or reason it was so easy to put them down and toss them like garbage into a pile of &^%$.

Faceless

April 4th, 2006, 03:54 PM

Another thing that I'm not sure whether I read right or not: were the dogs running on their own (rented) property or not? The owner, or caregiver, rented the house ... was this house on the same property as the farmer's herd, and if so, were they not just running on their "own" property (depending on the rental agreement, and what access the tenants had to the field.)

There is no indication that the dogs injured any cattle, they probably were just running around with them. The landlord himself asserted that they were not aggressive dogs. From his tone, it's pretty apparent that he shot them to "get at" his unruly tenants, and that it probably was due to previous problems that they had with each other, notwithstanding the "danger" to his herd. If I were the tenants I would still explore legal action against him, because he destroyed personal property ... and dumping the bodies in the compost pile is just callous.

Why this is a concern: can a landlord just deem your dogs a menace, come into your rented domicile when you're not around, and shoot your dogs? It will happen at some time, you watch.

Gazoo

April 4th, 2006, 08:05 PM

The farmer had every right to stop the dogs from chasing and/or attacking his cattle. Cattle are expensive to keep and breed and could be damaged or killed by dogs chasing or attacking them. The dogs could have taken down or killed a calf or young cow and/or a cow could have fallen or broken bones. Having the dogs chasing them could also put them off their feed and effect how soon they are ready for market.

He had every right to protect his animals...especially since he had warned the owners many times over.

I agree its sad that the dogs died...but that fault lies with the owners...not the farmer.

maigrey

April 4th, 2006, 08:42 PM

No, he could have called animal control, called anyone. Shooting an animal in the face that has no idea what he's doing wrong is the worst kind of human behaviour.

twodogsandacat

April 4th, 2006, 09:07 PM

It really pi$$#$# me off that we keep hearing about dogs that are shot legally by farmers.

I’m looking at moving to the country. I plan on making a smaller down payment as I need to make two purchases before I let my dogs out. A large fenced area, an outside perimeter fence, and an in ground dog containment fence to prevent digging at the physical fence.

The law is what it is: A livestock owner (cattle, sheep, fowl) has the right to shoot any dog that menaces his stock. Those are the rules to live by and if you screw up for your dog to die by. Until the law changes the reality is that your dog will not hear the shot that kills it.

A friend lives on a street where a dog was shot. First thought was that the shooter was an SOB. I have since been told that they have returned my friends dog when it got out. They did not shoot it. In fact the dog that was shot was continually allowed to run loose and menace livestock, and the owner was warned.

Agree or disagree. If you live near a farm talk to your neighbours. If your dog gets out once, that’s an accident and hopefully will be forgiven. If your dog is always out…you have no one to blame.

Farmers are already reeling from loses to their income as well as loses to their savings due to mad cow disease and the repercussions it had at the border. To lose even one cow that they have raised is a financial burden many cannot afford at this time.

I note the arguments relating to whether the tenants rented the home and a small parcel of land or if they were allowed use of the acreage as well as the biased comments made about pit bulls….I agree. However the law allows this and as dog owners we have an obligation to protect our animals from disease, vehicular accidents, hunters with guns…that should also include the legal use of guns by sane or insane persons.

As I said at the top I'm a little pi$$#$# off that this continually happens.

phoenix

April 4th, 2006, 10:03 PM

Another thing that I'm not sure whether I read right or not: were the dogs running on their own (rented) property or not? The owner, or caregiver, rented the house ... was this house on the same property as the farmer's herd, and if so, were they not just running on their "own" property (depending on the rental agreement, and what access the tenants had to the field.)

I am sure that the farmer did not give access to the tenants to his cows' field. This makes no sense.

There is no indication that the dogs injured any cattle, they probably were just running around with them. The landlord himself asserted that they were not aggressive dogs. From his tone, it's pretty apparent that he shot them to "get at" his unruly tenants, and that it probably was due to previous problems that they had with each other, notwithstanding the "danger" to his herd. If I were the tenants I would still explore legal action against him, because he destroyed personal property ... and dumping the bodies in the compost pile is just callous.

Farmers are different and I don't think you get that. It didn't sound like a crime of passion at all. It was repeated and the people were given warning. And... um... dogs don't just run around with cows for fun. At least, the cows don't find it fun. They abort their young, sometimes fall down and break legs, and sometimes die. I agree that burying the dogs in manure was callous though.

Why this is a concern: can a landlord just deem your dogs a menace, come into your rented domicile when you're not around, and shoot your dogs? It will happen at some time, you watch.

This is not about tenancy. He didn't go into their domicile. The dogs were on HIS property threatening his livelihood. I'm very upset, as I posted before, that the dogs paid the price for stupid owners. But, I don't think your logic follows that renters in cities have anything to worry about. Actually, as long as you keep your dog on your property and supervised, no one really need worry. Farmers aren't out there shooting everything in sight. Usually they are very neighbourly... hence the warnings etc. If you want to see a lawsuit, the dog owner is actually responsible for any damage/harm to the livestock etc while free and running around... even if it is the first time and an accident.

Watchdog

April 5th, 2006, 02:38 AM

I dont believe that the dogs were doing wrong.It sounds like this farmer was upset about damage to the house and the place being used for growing weed.Ill bet he used the lives of the dogs to get back at the renters and blow off steam because he knew he could get away with it.He should be buried in a pile of manure and dragged accross his 100 acres of mud.

Faceless

April 5th, 2006, 09:42 AM

Farmers are different? Don't worry I know that, having spent a vast portion of my young life in rural Alberta. Still shouldn't give them the right to act like idiots, which this farmer CERTAINLY comes across as. As has been previously brought up, this farmer could have easily called animal control. Instead, he chose to take out his firearm, and destroy somebody's pets. Classy, but then again, dogs are nothing but personal property anyways in this country, not living, breathing things apparently.

And yes, dogs run around with cows for fun. My uncle's Saint Bernard did it all the time. Of course the cows didn't like it, but the dog didn't do them any harm, and the situations you described never happened in my experience. Not saying they couldn't, but I highly doubt that it is a common occurrence.

As for this not being about tenancy, well, the landlord himself said it is ..." 'You want a story? Then look at landlord-tenant issues,' Cohoon says. 'There’s no story in shooting three dogs' " And as for logic not following, well, who would have thought that in Ontario police would be allowed into your home to seize your dogs while you're not around? I would surmise that most people would have said this was something we would never have to worry about. If the law already allows for your neighbours to shoot your dogs for certain offenses, how is it a stretch to say that it is a distinct possibility that in the future you may see it being lawful for them to execute your dogs for more than just cow chasing ... how about for being the genetically unstable, dangerous, illegal pitbull? Excuse me, but I don't see that as far-fetched as you might.

Watchdog

April 5th, 2006, 10:54 AM

A very good point made earlier about the fact that the farmer has the right to protect his property but nobody else does. Why the difference between the rights of a farmer and others? Why should the simple ownership of a field of mud make such a difference?

Gazoo

April 5th, 2006, 11:09 AM

Again, the fault here lies with the owner of the dogs, not the farmer.

The farmer acted within his rights. Just because the farmer holds different values regarding his livestock and dogs does not make him wrong nor evil :rolleyes:

maigrey

April 5th, 2006, 11:17 AM

But gazoo, the owners broke some rules, the farmer was the one to actually END a dog's life. That's like saying if someone brought a dog into a building where no dogs allowed the security guard is well within his rights to snap its neck.

Or if one of your pets wandered off accidentally and ended up in my yard, possibly digging, that I am well within my rights to thrown a brick at its head.

Yes, it may be just, but is it right?

Gazoo

April 5th, 2006, 11:23 AM

But the issue here is the dogs threatening the well being and health of his livestock not just being annoying.

Faceless

April 5th, 2006, 12:01 PM

But the issue here is the dogs threatening the well being and health of his livestock not just being annoying.

That might be the way you see the issue, but that doesn't necessarily make it the issue. In fact, you don't really know the farmer's motivations, only what you can infer from the article. What we do know is that he felt that it was no big deal to shoot non-aggressive family pets and throw their remains in the compost pile with obviously no regard for the human feelings involved. Within his rights? Maybe. But does it speak well of him as a human being? Not in my opinion.

Writing4Fun

April 5th, 2006, 12:28 PM

IMHO, this whole mess shows a very dark and ugly side to all of the humans involved. The farmer was within his rights, yes, but his handling of the situation shows no compassion. Mind you, we don't know what went on before this (and we know there was a history here), so maybe his compassion for these particular people and their dogs was already stretched to the limits. The owner/tenant was the most at fault, imo, since they had been warned previously about letting their dogs run at large and allowed it to continue to happen. Judging from the article, though (and that's all we have to form our opinions on), they weren't exactly model tenants or citizens, so their lack of responsiblity towards their dogs should probably come as no surprise. Once again, though, it's the dogs who paid in the end. Hopefully, they were at least killed instantly and didn't suffer. :sad:

Luvmypit

April 5th, 2006, 02:44 PM

What I find odd is that dogs are and have been part of herding cows forever now suddenly chasing cows can cause a million different problems? And the farmer had absolutly no other way to deal with it? He could have done other things and the fact that he is the one who points to problems with the tenants shows intent or at least motivation for shooting non agressive dogs.

I know that is was perfectly legal for him to do that but there is also a law called Bill 132 and I am sure we all agree that it is unfair also.

I just can't understand it at all. I would have exercised other options. I don't agree with what the farmer did and nothing can change that. even warning shots. BUT HE SHOT ALL THREE DOGS. Not one, not two but all three! That is intent to kill not to defend at that point. I woundlt understand but at least could see from his view point if he injured one of the dogs. I am sure the dogs where scared once the first one was shot and I am sure they didnt continue doing what they were doing. And how can you shoot a running dog cleanly? All three cleanly? Sounds like he rounded them up first to me. ALL THREE? I mean come on.

LM1313

April 5th, 2006, 03:30 PM

The owner shouldn't have been letting the dogs run loose, but come on . . . This is ridiculous. It doesn't sound like the dogs even injured the cattle, as I'm sure it would've been mentioned in the article (only they wouldn't have said killing, it would've been MAULING.)

It sounds to me like his primary motivation was vengeance--not on the dogs, but on his tenants. Throwing the bodies on the compost heap seems especially callous, like he purposely did it just to taunt the dogs' owners.

He sounds like a creep. Were there even any witnesses to the cow chasing besides, conveniently, him?

~LM~

Gazoo

April 5th, 2006, 04:08 PM

Why are the values of the farmer/doctor automatically perceived as "wrong". Why is he "wrong" in protecting the animals he perceived as more valuable than the dogs if it was done humanely? Rural values are different than city values....that doesn't make them wrong or heartless.

It's most likely the cattle are almost as smart as the dogs and are sentient as well, yet there is less concern about their welfare and safety. Two pitbulls could easily have taken down and killed a small cow or calf.

Who decides the ranking of animal importance? In other countries dogs are food. In some countries cattle are exalted. Why do people in this thread seem to think they have the right to dictate the values of others?!?!?

Gazoo

April 5th, 2006, 04:11 PM

Throwing the bodies on the compost heap seems especially callous, like he purposely did it just to taunt the dogs' owners.

He sounds like a creep.
~LM~

Nothing creepy about it. Thats what you do with dead animals on a farm so they compost and can be used as fertilizer. Rural values are different than city values..that doesn't make them wrong.

Luvmypit

April 5th, 2006, 04:42 PM

Why do people in this thread seem to think they have the right to dictate the values of others?!?!?

I dont know if I took out a gun and said you must feel the same way as me but I find in no way am I dictating. I thought I was allowed to share my opinion on here. This is my opinion and by no means am I asking you to agree with me.
As I said I could even be more comforted knowing he maybe injured one but the callousness is clear. I would have said hands down that he was in his right to shoot the dogs if they were attacking or even threatening the cows but even the farmer says that they were not in one bit. I certainly can see the argument made about protecting his cattle. They werent at that point threatening so I would have called AC first. My point is and was that he did it with motivation, went out of his way and shot not one but all three of the dogs. Was that neccesary? I don't think so. I am talking about this incident and this incident solely. Not dogs as food or what animal is more important. So to me thats apples and oranges. Your implying more then I am saying.

chico2

April 5th, 2006, 05:09 PM

Gazoo,you have a penchant for stirring up peoples feelings,no matter the subject.
You definitely have a right to your opinion,but to me shooting dogs is just not right,there are many other options.
The owners risked their dogs lives,by not heeding the warnings,but legally or not,it was not morally right for him to shoot these dogs.
I cannot believe that three dogs stood there waiting to be shot in the head,so more than likely wherever they were shot it took them a while to die,more than likely they were lying there dying on the compostheap.
Animals don't know any boundaries,if let out to roam on their own,does that mean anybody has the right to shoot them,what happened to compassion for any living thing:confused:

phoenix

April 5th, 2006, 05:10 PM

And yes, dogs run around with cows for fun. My uncle's Saint Bernard did it all the time. Of course the cows didn't like it, but the dog didn't do them any harm, and the situations you described never happened in my experience. Not saying they couldn't, but I highly doubt that it is a common occurrence.

well it is a great farmer who lets a big dog upset and chase cows and has no problem with it. And it is a great dog owner who lets his dog run around and possibly get kicked, stepped on or otherwise hurt, too. I have in fact seen sheep killed by dogs running free, and also have had a horse abort due to this same thing.

I don't have cows, but do have horses. Let me assure you that they are sensitive creatures. They are not dog toys. So, if I were in the farmer's situation, I would be very upset about a pack of dogs chasing my horses around on my land and threatening their well being. I don't care at this point about the dogs having fun or being aggressive. I only care about my own animals' reaction to it.

No cat owner here would accept a dog jumping on their cat because the dog was having fun. But it's ok for our animals (dogs) to stress out cows, or deer, or other wild animals for that matter?? I don't believe so. That, supposedly, is what OWNERS are for... to control their animals and keep them and others safe.

I want to thank you for your diplomacy in your post, and I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I just want to make clear that I myself don't like that the dogs were shot. I just don't think, as Gazoo stated, that the man is bad or evil or worse. It is a different way of thinking about animals and a different way of life.

Writing4Fun

April 5th, 2006, 05:11 PM

“The dogs were out running my cattle, and on more than one occasion,”

Even if the dogs weren't intentially or maliciously attacking the cattle, they were "running" them, which means the cattle felt threatened. Like Phoenix said, this could cause injury or even death to the cattle. The farmer, I'm presuming (since I wasn't there, so I don't know for certain), felt that he had to do what was necessary to protect his cattle. In situations like that, there's no time to call animal control and wait for them to come out. That could take hours, if not days in a tiny community like this, and who knows how many cattle would be injured or worse in that case? If these were some other kind of predator threatening his livestock, he would have reacted the same way, shooting as many of them as he could get to. He's a farmer. Animals are property to him. He obviously feels no emotional attachment to them. The people who did feel the emotional attachment should have gone out of their way to make sure the poor dogs didn't land in harm's way, especially when they were given clear warnings as to the dogs' fate should they be caught at it again. But, they didn't care enough to keep their dogs safe. I don't know why he felt the need to bury them in a manure pile. Maybe that's just something farmers do with dead animals. If they find a dead skunk or groundhog on their property, maybe this is how they dispose of it. Returning it to nature, "composting" as he put it. It may be insulting to us, but maybe it's perfectly normal to him.

chico2

April 5th, 2006, 05:40 PM

I am sorry,I still feel there must have been other options,although I can certainly symphatize with the poor frightened cows.:sad: